-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 186
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Can we handle z-fight issue in ospray #546
Comments
Related to #545. Let us explore the use case a bit more:
|
Hi @johguenther, Thank you for the reply. Indeed the z-fight is the issue face quite frequently by many users in graphics engine.
Just to give you perspective, if something like this is doable, lets say we set priority to surface from 1 to 5. And 3 is the default. And at shader, we check as below... if priority is 3 : do nothing Currently if we add manual offset to each vertices before creating ospray geometry, then static images is ok. But when we change the camera angle it is not correct. Because on each frame the vertice will not offset based on camera angle. Thanks. |
I do not want to offset vertices (problematic for a ray tracer), but instead was thinking to consistently handle the intersections by taking the instance and object IDs into account as well. The co-planar surfaces are not within the same geometry, are they? Then they would usually have the same material and also cannot be distinguished which one to offset / select. |
Hi @johguenther , Right the co-planer surfaces are not within the same geometry. "Consistently handle the interaction" solution seems promising. I think this should solve the z-fight problem. Any plane for implementation ? |
Hello,
We face z-fight issue when two co-planner surfaces are there. In opengl we can handle that issue by giving priority to specific surface and at rendering time, based on camera angle we apply offset to the vertice in shader according to priority.
Is something like this possible in ospray, can we modify vertices value based on camera angle ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: